Restoration App. No. 1186 of 2008 :

For the reasons stated, the Application is allowed. The order dated 30th September, 2008 is recalled and the writ petition is restored to its original position.

Writ Petition No. 1984 of 2001 (M/S) :

2. The issue involved for consideration in this case is indeed very, very simple even though it is slightly important. The facts in brief :

The petitioner/plaintiff filed a Suit for declaration etc. in the court of Civil Judge at Nainital against respondents Nos. 3 to 5. As per the averment contained in para 10 of the Plaint, the valuation of the Suit was fixed at Rs. 50 lacs. Whilst the Suit was pending in the trial court, the petitioner/plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the Plaint, which was allowed by the trial court. Aggrieved, respondents Nos. 3 to 5 / defendants filed revision petition against the said order, allowing the amendment of the Plaint, before the First Addl. District Judge, Nainital being Civil Revision No. 20 of 1999 who, vide the impugned order dated 19th June, 2000, partly allowed the said Civil Revision filed by the aforesaid respondents and a partial permission was granted to the petitioner/plaintiff to amend the Plaint to a limited extent only. The remaining, other amendments of the Plaint, were refused. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner/plaintiff has filed the present writ petition in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the aforesaid order dated 19th June, 2000 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Nainital on the only ground that he did not have any jurisdiction under Section 115 C.P.C. to entertain the revision petition and to pass the impugned order because Section 115 C.P.C. vested the exercise of revisional jurisdiction in the High Court alone because of the fact that the valuation of the Suit was Rs. 50 lacs.

3. The relevant part of Section 115 C.P.C., insofar as it has been amended for the State of Uttar Pradesh (read State of Uttarakhand now) reads thus :

“115. Revision. — The High Court, in cases arising out of original suits or other proceedings [of the value exceeding one lakh rupees or such higher amount not exceeding five lakh rupees as the High Court may from time to time fix, by notification published in the Official Gazette including such suits or other proceedings instituted before the date of commencement of the including such suits or other proceedings instituted before the date of commencement of U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1991, or as the case may be, the date of commencement of such notification] and the District Court in any other case, including a case arising out of an original suit or other proceedings instituted before such date, may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court or District Court, as the case may be, and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears –

(a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law; or

(b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; or

(c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity,

the High Court or the District Court, as the case may be, may make such order in the case as it thinks fit :

Provided that in respect of cases arising out of original suits or other proceedings of any valuation, decided by the District Court, the High Court alone shall be competent to make an order under this section :

………….. “

4. The parties are at variance on a question of fact whether any Notification was issued and published in the Official Gazette enhancing the jurisdictional valuation above Rs. 1 lac but not excedding Rs. 5 lacs, but the fact remains that even if such a notification might have been issued by the High Court, the upper limit of the valuation jurisdiction vesting in the District Judge could not have been more than Rs. 5 lacs. In the present case the valuation of the Suit, as it was originally filed, wa